Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Fixing the newly broken rogue class (thanks to Andy and 3.5)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 1023865" data-attributes="member: 7211"><p>Is it "tough" or totally different? While you get rage you also lose out on evasion and 4 skill points per level (which is at least 8 for 2 levels, more if we are talking 1st level). It is actually a very tough call. I don't think taking one or the other is an "always" thing, but in my experience, adding the rogue levels fits more archtypes than adding the barb levels.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Whoa whoa. Who said "strictly for powergaming" about multiclassing? Is that what multiclassing other than evenly represents to you? In that case I think you need to revise some of the gospel you learnt from AD&D 2ed. If I choose to add 1,2, or 3 levels of rogue to my fighter there isn't necessarily anything "powergaming" about it, in fact, in a balanced system my DM shouldnt have to worry about powergaming from how you pick your classes and levels.</p><p></p><p>The point is your version is far more overloaded than either 3.0 or 3.5, which gives it a good chance of being "broken".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is this your way of saying you decreased the level you need to get 2 core rogue abilities but it doesnt make the class any more attractive to multiclass? Because...thats really wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You hear a click, you watch someone step on a tile, you open a door and it has more resistance than it should - any of those things can indicate a trap that is "set off", how quickly I react to those things has nothing to do with my sense motive roll (of all things) and while it could be tied to my spot roll, in 3e it isn't. Instead its linked to the reflex saving throw, which is poor for barbarians and good for rogues (a point you didn't bother to quote). Now, giving barbarians and rogues an ability which lets them avoid traps does not necessarily make them equally adept at trap removal, but it gives the barbarian more of a chance than say a fighter or a paladin. That makes sense to me, especially in the context of things like pit traps or outdoor snares and the like.</p><p></p><p>So is your problem with Trap Sense +x or the way traps are avoided in general? Because the sense motive and spot skills don't come into play (although search and disable device do).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No you didn't, but my analogy was as follows. You don't like that the barbarian got an ability to avoid traps because it doesnt fit them, says you. In 3.0 the new monk class got evasion, an ability it shared only with the rogue, which some might say belongs to the rogue more than the monk. In other words, if barbarians had had trap sense from the outset, would you have beef with it?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This, I feel, is my strongest argument (or your weakest). It is very easy to see how a barbarian could fend off 2 people on his flanks. It is not so easy to see how the rogue could do this. Im speaking of stereotypes here. Most normal characters are "distracted" by the flank, so that they lose their dexterity bonus (their ability to react, if you will). Barbarians don't lose it because it is natural to them to react on either side, they have seen gangs of animals fight <insert whatever flavor>. Rogues get the ability because they often flank opponents and are supposedly covering openings they usually exploit.</p><p></p><p>Just because you know what you exploit doesnt mean you have the ability to defend against it, at least in my book, in the real world. I may know how to punch someone or box someones ears, but I dont know a particularly good block for either, especially if Im fighting 2 people on either side of me. Remember, one argument is about rules, does this rule make sense in the context of the rest of the abilities, the other is about flavor, does this rule make sense in the context of this archtype. Imo, the "keeps dex" makes sense for the rogue and the "can't be flanked" makes sense for the barb. Thus, I am happy with 3.5 because it presents a balanced solution for both classes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>May I ask how many level 20+ characters youve played? How many were created pre-level 15? If you have problems answering those questions than its safe to say you don't like dead levels because your personal bias is nothing more than an anal nature. IMO.</p><p></p><p>Also since when do characters need something every level? I think theres about 8 or 9 fighter levels where they don't get anything, and if you count feats as nothing special then just about all 20 are "dead levels". What about a spellcaster in between spell levels? Look at the bard or cleric. Dead levels are no big deal, you still get something every level, some of it just goes on "under the hood".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Try again.</p><p></p><p>Technik</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Technik4, post: 1023865, member: 7211"] Is it "tough" or totally different? While you get rage you also lose out on evasion and 4 skill points per level (which is at least 8 for 2 levels, more if we are talking 1st level). It is actually a very tough call. I don't think taking one or the other is an "always" thing, but in my experience, adding the rogue levels fits more archtypes than adding the barb levels. Whoa whoa. Who said "strictly for powergaming" about multiclassing? Is that what multiclassing other than evenly represents to you? In that case I think you need to revise some of the gospel you learnt from AD&D 2ed. If I choose to add 1,2, or 3 levels of rogue to my fighter there isn't necessarily anything "powergaming" about it, in fact, in a balanced system my DM shouldnt have to worry about powergaming from how you pick your classes and levels. The point is your version is far more overloaded than either 3.0 or 3.5, which gives it a good chance of being "broken". Is this your way of saying you decreased the level you need to get 2 core rogue abilities but it doesnt make the class any more attractive to multiclass? Because...thats really wrong. You hear a click, you watch someone step on a tile, you open a door and it has more resistance than it should - any of those things can indicate a trap that is "set off", how quickly I react to those things has nothing to do with my sense motive roll (of all things) and while it could be tied to my spot roll, in 3e it isn't. Instead its linked to the reflex saving throw, which is poor for barbarians and good for rogues (a point you didn't bother to quote). Now, giving barbarians and rogues an ability which lets them avoid traps does not necessarily make them equally adept at trap removal, but it gives the barbarian more of a chance than say a fighter or a paladin. That makes sense to me, especially in the context of things like pit traps or outdoor snares and the like. So is your problem with Trap Sense +x or the way traps are avoided in general? Because the sense motive and spot skills don't come into play (although search and disable device do). No you didn't, but my analogy was as follows. You don't like that the barbarian got an ability to avoid traps because it doesnt fit them, says you. In 3.0 the new monk class got evasion, an ability it shared only with the rogue, which some might say belongs to the rogue more than the monk. In other words, if barbarians had had trap sense from the outset, would you have beef with it? This, I feel, is my strongest argument (or your weakest). It is very easy to see how a barbarian could fend off 2 people on his flanks. It is not so easy to see how the rogue could do this. Im speaking of stereotypes here. Most normal characters are "distracted" by the flank, so that they lose their dexterity bonus (their ability to react, if you will). Barbarians don't lose it because it is natural to them to react on either side, they have seen gangs of animals fight <insert whatever flavor>. Rogues get the ability because they often flank opponents and are supposedly covering openings they usually exploit. Just because you know what you exploit doesnt mean you have the ability to defend against it, at least in my book, in the real world. I may know how to punch someone or box someones ears, but I dont know a particularly good block for either, especially if Im fighting 2 people on either side of me. Remember, one argument is about rules, does this rule make sense in the context of the rest of the abilities, the other is about flavor, does this rule make sense in the context of this archtype. Imo, the "keeps dex" makes sense for the rogue and the "can't be flanked" makes sense for the barb. Thus, I am happy with 3.5 because it presents a balanced solution for both classes. May I ask how many level 20+ characters youve played? How many were created pre-level 15? If you have problems answering those questions than its safe to say you don't like dead levels because your personal bias is nothing more than an anal nature. IMO. Also since when do characters need something every level? I think theres about 8 or 9 fighter levels where they don't get anything, and if you count feats as nothing special then just about all 20 are "dead levels". What about a spellcaster in between spell levels? Look at the bard or cleric. Dead levels are no big deal, you still get something every level, some of it just goes on "under the hood". Try again. Technik [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Fixing the newly broken rogue class (thanks to Andy and 3.5)
Top